Disposed

Mohd. Javed Ahmad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2019A482/32223/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash complaint case alleging malafide prosecution filed as counterblast. High Court rejected quashing plea holding no infirmity in impugned order, but directed expeditious bail consideration if applicants surrender within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Application refused regarding quash; directive issued for bail consideration within 30 days upon surrender; coercive action stayed for 30 days.

Mohd. Javed Ahmad and Another Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32223 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Javed Ahmad And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- D.M.Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

The present application has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 505 of 2019 (Shahin Begum Vs. Mohd. Javed Ahmad and others), under Sections 323, 376, 392, 452, 506 IPC, Police Station Sarai Akil, District Allahabad arising out of summoning order dated 20.6.2019 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that one FIR had already been lodged by the father of the applicant no. 1 against Shaharyan under Section 376 (2) (i), 452 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act. Matter was investigated. Charge sheet was submitted. Present complaint was filed in counterblast with malafide intention after lodging of the aforesaid FIR. It is also argued that opposite party no. 2 is real "Mausi" of the accused Shaharyan shown in the FIR. At this juncture learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 SSC (Cr) 426 and argued that this matter is squarely covered with the aforesaid decision as present complaint was filed in counterblast with malafide intention. Continuation of the proceeding of the aforesaid case is abuse of process of law.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that applicants have been summoned on the basis of the statements recorded under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C.. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶9

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The Magistrate dealing with complaint at this stage has to see only prima-facie case and it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicants. Further, the plea raised before this Court would require leading of evidence, which can be raised before the court concerned at the appropriate Stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused.

¶10

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants prays that a direction may be issued to the court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicants.

¶11

Hence, it is directed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within 30 days from today the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken/given effect to against the applicants. It is made clear that no further time will be allowed to the applicants for surrender before the court concerned.

¶12

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 23.9.2019

¶13

Sachdeva

Mohd. Javed Ahmad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Javed Ahmad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gagan Singh and 5 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Raj Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Siya Ram Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Smt. Arbunnisha and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mr. Seriful Islam and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogendra Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another